ADDRESS 


OF 


JOHN  WHIPPLE 


TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF 


RHODE-ISLAND, 


ON 


THE  APPROACHING  ELECTION. 


PROVIDENCE: 

KNOWLES  AND  VOSE,  PRINTERS. 

1843. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/addressofjohnwhiOOwhipiala 


UCSB   LIBRARY 


ADDRESS. 


To  the  Citizens  of  Rhode-Island  : 

As  the  result  of  the  approaching  election  appears  to  my  mind 
to  be  pregnant  with  unusual  importance,  and  calculated  to 
produce  consequences  of  weal  or  of  woe,  which  will  not  soon 
pass  away,  I  feel  it  to  be  an  imperative  duty  to  do  all  in  my 
power  to  obtain  for  it  your  calm,  dispassionate  and  serious  at- 
tention. If  any  apology  should  be  deemed  necessary  for  in- 
truding upon  you  the  opinions  of  an  individual  who  neither 
claims  nor  possesses  means  of  a  correct  judgment  not  open  to 
all,  I  hope  it  may  be  found  in  the  fact  that  I  have  never  been 
a  very  obedient  follower  of  party  dictation,  or  a  very  warm 
admirer  of  party  leaders. — In  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  the  extreme 
selfishness  of  office  hunters,  operates  in  the  double  mode  ol 
impairing  their  judgment  and  neutralizing  their  integrity. 

They  easily  persuade  themselves  that  every  election  is  im- 
portant upon  which  their  fate  depends,  and  that  all  means  are 
justifiable  which  contribute  to  their  elevation.  Without  claim- 
ing a  more  unerring  judgment,  or  a  more  resolute  integrity,  I 
simply  feel  that  I  am  under  no  similar  temptation.  I  am  nei- 
ther in  want  of  an  office  nor  of  any  of  the  equivocal  distinc- 
tions which  office  confers,  and  I  feel  conscious  of  no  other  am- 
bition of  a  political  nature,  than  that  the  people  of  my  native 
State  may  maintain  the  high  character  which,  until  recently, 
has  never  been  brought  into  question. 

A  further  reason  for  appearing  before  you  in  this  uncalled  for 
manner  is,  that  I  am  not  very  partial  to  anonymous  essays,  es- 
pecially upon  momentous  questions.  Disguise  of  all  sorts,  is 
generally  resorted  to  for  some  selfish  end.  If  a  writer  upon  po- 
litical subjects  has  no  other  object  but  truth  and  correct  princi- 
ples, he  exposes  himself  to  no  greater  risk  by  giving  his  name, 
than  he  does  by  an  avowal  of  his  opinions  upon  ordinary  sub- 
jects, in  the  daily  intercourse  of  life.  In  either  case,  if  he 
commits  mistakes,  an  acknowledgment  of  them,  when  pointed 
out,  neither  impairs  his  dignity  nor  lessons  his  influence. 


But  there  are  higher  and  weightier  reasons  than  all  these  for 
presenting  ray  views  to  my  fellow-citizens  upon  this  occasion. 
The  principles  avowed  by  the  party  supporting  the  Carpenter 
Prox,  necessarily  tend  to  annihilate  all  government,  and  to  de- 
stroy the  peace  of  all  society.  They  were  first  avowed  in 
Rhode-Island  by  a  man  whose  sole  object  in  life  was  political 
power,  and  whose  sole  means  of  attaining  it  was  by  addressing 
the  prejudices  of  the  most  ignorant  class  of  society.  ^ 

The  most  prominent  of  these  principles  are,  that  all  power 
is  in  the  people;  that  a  majority  have  a  right  at  their  own  time 
and  in  their  own  mode,  to  alter  or  amend  an  existing  constitu- 
tion, or  to  substitute  a  new  one  without  the  assent  of  the  gov- 
ernment in  being  ;  that  a  constitution  thus  made  becomes  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land,  and  that  all  future  exercise  of  power 
by  the  existing  government,  becomes  arbitrary  and  illegal,  and 
may  be  lawfully  resisted  by  force.  Against  such  visionary, 
frantic  and  revolutionary  doctrines,  I  am  anxious  to  record  my 
written  and  most  solemn  protest. 

I  should  not  feel  that  I  had  discharged  my  duty  to  myself  or 
to  my  fellow-citizens,  without  exerting  the  little  of  power  I 
possess  in  endeavoring  to  dispel  the  delusion  under  which  a 
portion  of  the  well  meaning  of  our  population  labor. 

That  delusion  is  based  upon  aright  which  has  no  existence 
in  fact,  and  which  never  can  exist;  the  natural  right  of  a  ma- 
jority to  govern  the  minority.  Suppose  twelve  men,  by  some 
disaster,  to  be  thrown  together  upon  an  uninhabited  island, 
would  seven  out  of  the  twelve  possess  a  natural  right  to  estab- 
lish a  constitution  of  government  for  the  whole  ?  If  the  five 
should  prefer  to  live  by  themselves,  would  they  not  possess  the 
right  so  to  do?  If  the  majority  possess  the  right  by  nature  to 
establish  a  constitution  for  the  whole,  they  must  necessarily 
possess  the  right  to  dictate  the  terms  of  that  constitution.  They 
must  possess  the  right  to  provide  that  the  five  should  perform 
all  the  labor,  and  that  the  seven  should  enjoy  the  fruits  of  that 
labor.  In  such  a  case  would  no  the  five  possess  the  natural 
right  to  resist  ?  If  the  whole  twelve  should  agree  to  be  bound 
by  such  a  constitution  as  a  majority  should  establish,  they 
would  be  bound  by  force  of  their  agreement  alone.  Nature 
created  men  with  instincts  and  wants  which  impel  them  to 
live  together.  But  the  ternis  upon  which  they  shall  live  are 
matter  of  compact  and  of  compact  alone. 


The  whole  fallacy  of  the  opposite  argument  consists  in  sup- 
posing that  government  is  the  work  of  nature.  Man  is  the 
work  of  nature,  and  government  the  work  of  man,  as  exclu- 
sively so  as  is  a  house  or  a  shop. 

I  have  asserted  that  no  one  man,  or  class  of  men,  derive 
from  nature  any  power  over  another  man  or  class  of  men,  and 
that  the  power  of  a  majority  over  a  minority  is  derived  from 
compact  and  agreement  alone.  I  will  endeavor  to  make  this 
phiin  and  intelligible. 

Ojr  ancestors,  two  hundred  years  ago,  became  both  the 
settlers  and  purchasers  of  Rhode  Island.  As  purchasers,  they 
had  a  right  to  agree  among  themselves  what  form  of  govern- 
ment they  should  establish.  They  did  agree,  and  their  agree- 
ment was  ratified  by  the  mother  country,  which  claimed, 
either  rightfully  or  wrongfully,  a  jurisdiction  over  us.  They 
agreed  that  a  local  Legislature  should  be  chosen  by  tlie  owners 
of  the  soil,  and  they  confided  to  that  Legislature  general  pow- 
ers of  government.  Those  who  were  not  freeholders  then, 
and  those  who  came  among  us  since,  knew  that  the  power  to 
admit  others  to  the  right  of  voting  was  in  the  Legislature 
alone.  They  continued  here  on  those  terms.  They  submit- 
ted to  that  government.  They  obeyed  its  laws,  and  regulated 
their  conduct  by  the  rules  prescribed  by  that  Legislature  alone. 
The  number  of  non-freeholders  cannot  alter  the  principle.  If 
they  were  a  minority,  their  right  to  vote  or  alter  the  law  to 
which  they  had  submitted,  was  as  perfect  as  if  they  were  a 
majority.  The  freeholders  and  non-freeholders,  by  volun- 
tarily choosing  this  as  their  place  of  residence,  agreed  that  the 
sole  power  of  changing  the  terms  of  the  elective  franchise 
should  remain  with  the  Legislature  to  be  exercised  by  them- 
selves, or  by  such  portions  of  the  people  as  the  Legislature 
should  designate.  This  power  has  been  exercised  at  various 
times  in  the  modes  pointed  out  by  the  government,  and  the 
people,  until  recently,  have  always  acquiesced  in  it,  because 
they  liave  continued  to  live  under  those  laws.  This  is  the  prin- 
ciple, and  the  only  principle  upon  which  any  free  government 
ca7i  exist.  The  people  of  all  classes  and  sexes  agreed,  by  vol- 
untarily remaining  here,  that  the  Legislature  should  be  their 
agents  in  making  new  laws  or  in  modifying  old  ones.  They 
nei;eragreed,  either  expressly  or  impliedly,  that  any  other  body 


of  men  should  exercise  any  power  over  this  subject.  Very  re- 
cently, a  new  set  of  men  have  started  a  new  principle,  never 
before  claimed  in  this  State,  nor  to  my  knowledge,  in  any  part 
of  the  civilized  world.  To  me  it  is  an  entirely  new  principle. 
The  principle  is,  that  a  majority  of  the  people  themselves,  over 
21  years  of  age,  without  the  assent  of  the  Legislature,  possess 
the  right  to  make  a  new  constitution,  and  that  when  made,  it 
becomes  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  and  may  be  enforced 
and  established  by  military  power,  if  the  minority  refuse  their 
obedience  to  it.  For  the  sake  of  this  argument,  I  will  take  it 
for  granted  that  there  was  a  majority  of  the  male  citizens  over 
21  years  of  age,  in  favor  of  what  is  called  the  People's  Constitu- 
tion. Does  that  fact  alter  the  principle  ?  Is  it  not  as  arbitrary, 
impracticable  and  grossly  unjust,  as  if  it  had  been  voted  for  by 
a  minority  only  ?  The  supporters  of  this  novel  and  visionary 
theory  contradict  themselves  at  the  very  first  step  in  their  ar- 
gument. They  say  that  all  who  are  to  be  controlled  by  a  con- 
stitution have  a  right  by  nature  to  a  voice  in  its  formation. — 
Women  and  children,  natives  and  foreigners,  white  and  black, 
are  to  be  controlled  by  the  People's  constitution,  and  their 
rights  by  nature  are  the  same  over  me,  that  mine  are  Over 
them.  They  constitute  the  piople  to  be  governed,  and  upon 
this  new  doctrine,  it  must  be  a  majority  of  all,  and  DOt  a  ma- 
jority of  a  part,  which  possess  the  power.  Here  then  is  a 
gross  contradiction  to  commence  with.  They  say  they  pro- 
ceed upon  our  natural  ri:ihts,  but  when  they  come  to  act,  they 
reject  the  natural  rights  of  one  hundred  thousand  persons,  and 
confer  the  whole  power  of  deciding  upon  our  fundamental  law, 
apon  a  majority  of  the  remaining  five  and  twenty  thousand. 
Thirteen  thousand  are  hy  nature  the  majority  of  108  thousand! 
Why  do  they  thus  depart  from  their  own  principle?  The  an- 
swer is  because  their  principle  is  impracticable  and  wholly 
visionary.     It  never  has  been  enforced  and  it  never  can  he. 

But  its  impracticability  is  not  the  only  objection  to  it.  It  is 
arbitrary  and  unjust  in  the  extreme.  I  do  not  mean  that  it  is 
arbitrary  and  unjust  to  exclude  the  women  and  children.  It  is 
necessary  and  just  because  no  other  cause  is  practicable.  I  do 
not  mean  that  it  is  arbitrary  and  unjust  that  13,000  male  voters 
over  21  years  of  age,  should  establish  a  constitution  for  25,000 
voters,  if  the  25,000  voters  a^ree  either  themselves,  or  through 


their  Legislature,  that  they  will  abide  by  a  constitution  which 
such  a  i^ajority  of  such  persons  shall  make.  What  I  do  mean  is 
simply  this,  that  no  man  or  class  of  men  can  be  bound  by  the 
acts  of  another  man  or  class  of  men,  unless  he  has  a  voice 
in  the  choice  of  his  judges,  unless  he  has  an  opportunity  to  be 
heard  upon  that  choice,  unless  the  proceedings  of  those  judges 
are  regulated  by  some  rule  or  principle  equally  fair  for  all. 
This  is  a  plain  and  obvious  principle  of  natural  justice  which  can 
never  be  departed  from,  without  destroying  the  very  foundations 
of  government.  This  right  may  be  waived.  A  man  may  vol- 
untarily remain  under  a  government  in  the  measures  of  which 
he  has  no  voice.  The  instances  are  numerous.  Even  those 
who  are  not  entitled  to  vote,  are  entitled  to  be  heard,  either 
before  the  Legislature  or  before  the  people  at  large. 

Mark,  then,  the  wide  and  immeasurable  distance  between 
the  principle  of  the  people's  constitution  and  of  the  constitution 
now  in  force.  Before  either  of  those  constitutions  was  formed, 
the  Legislature  was  the  agent  of  all  the  people  of  the  State. 
Although  all  did  not  possess  the  right  to  vote,  yet  all,  men,  wo- 
men and  children,  possessed  the  undoubted  right  to  be  heard 
by  petition  and  by  counsel,  upon  two  questions  ;  1st.  Wheth- 
er it  was  prudent  and  necessary  to  call  a  convention  to  frame 
a  constitution  ?  2d.  If  prudent,  what  class  of  men  should  vote 
upon  the  appointment  of  the  delegates  ?  The  decision  of  the 
Legislature  binds  those  who  are  for  and  those  who  are  against 
a  convention,  and  it  conclusively  and  legally  settles  both  the 
questions  submitted  to  it,  because  the  Legislature  constitute 
the  agents  of  all  the  people.  All  the  people,  therefore,  possess 
the  right  to  be  heard  by  their  agents  before  any  decision  is 
made.     When  made,  all  are  bound  by  it. 

But,  further,  the  Legislature  is  bound  to  fix  and  establish 
some  rule  or  law  by  which  the  opposite  parties,  at  the  primary 
meetings,  can  prevent  the  voting  of  persons  not  properly  qual- 
ified. The  meetings  for  the  choice  of  delegates  and  for  the 
final  adoption  or  rejection  of  the  work  of  the  convention,  must 
be  conducted  under  some  fixed  rules  which  are  as  binding 
upon  the  majority  as  upon  the  Tninoritij.  If  the  votes  of  all 
the  towns  amounted  to  a  majority  of  the  whole,  but  a  portion 
of  them  were  not  polled  in  compliance  with  the  law,  they  must 
he  rejected ;  and  so  the  constitution  would  fail,  though  there 
was  a  majority  for  it.     Such  has  been  the  usage  of  this  and  all 


8 

other  free  countries,  from  the  earliest  period  to  the  present  mo- 
ment. The  parties  among  the  people,  whether  minorities  or 
majorities,  can  decide  nothing  by  mere  force  of  being  parties. 

The  majority  on  one  side,  and  the  minority  on  the  other, 
must  be  the  majority  ascertained  in  the  mode  designated  by 
the  law.  Then  the  minority  is  bound,  because  the  rule  estab- 
lished by  its  agents,  so  provided.  In  other  words,  because  it 
agreed  to  be  bound  through  its  lawful  agents.  For  a  consti- 
tution thus  established,  1  would  fight,  even  though  I  disliked 
its  provisions  and  voted  against  it,  because  it  is  safer  and  better 
to  support  all  constitutions  legally  made,  than  to  allow  them  to 
be  trampled  upon  because  they  do  not  square  with  our  individ. 
ual  opinions. 

In  the  above  mode  of  proceedmg,  you  preceive  that  the  par- 
ties among  the  people,  are  but  parties.  Like  parties  in  court, 
they  must  try  their  disputes  by  rules  of  law,  before  judges  and 
jurors  appointed  by  the  law,  and  not  by  the  parties. 

Let  me  now  endeavor  to  show  the  arbitrary,  unjust  and 
tyrannical  mode  of  proceeding  adopted  in  forming  the  People's 
constitution.  I  do  not  complain  of  it  as  simply  illegal.  It  is 
downright  tyranny  of  the  worst  character. 

In  the  first  place,  we  find  a  party  among  the  people  desirous 
of  an  extension  of  suffrage,  and  a  party  against  it.  They  are 
not  judges  under  oath,  or  legislators  under  oath,  bound  to  pro- 
ceed according  to  certain  rules,  but  parties,  influenced  by  oppo- 
site interests  and  opposite  feelings.  They  are  parties,  living  un- 
der a  republican  government,  which  is  a  representative  govern- 
ment. This  representative  government  is  guaranteed  to  us  by 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  is  not  a.  pure  Demo- 
cracy, in  which  all  the  power  is  in  the  people  and  to  be  exercised 
by  the  people — a  government  in  which  the  laws  are  to  be  chang- 
ed not  by  the  people  themselves — but  by  their  representatives  ; 
a  government  in  which  no  law  can  be  of  any  binding  force  upon 
any  one,  unless  it  has  been  enacted  by  the  Legislature.  This 
is  the  government  we  have  agreed  to  live  under,  and  this  alone. 
If  nine-tenths  of  the  people  should  meet  and  repeal  a  law,  it 
would  continue  still  to  be  a  law.  If  nine-tenths  should  enact  a 
new  law,  it  would  not  bind  even  those  who  made  it.  The  peo- 
ple of  this  country,  as  a  people,  possess  no  power  whatever  ex- 
cept to  appoint  their  rulers.  The  people  designedly  withheld  this 
power  from  themselves  and  vested  it  in  representatives,  in  order 


9 

to  guard  against  the  sudden  and  dangerous  impulses  to  which 
large  masses  are  always  subject. 

In  the  case  under  consideration,  a  portion  of  the  people  as- 
sumed upon  themselves  the  task  of  changing  our  whole  form 
of  government — of  converting  a  strictly  representative  govern- 
ment, under  which  the  people  are  governed  by  fixed  and  stable 
laws,  the  result  of  the  deliberation  of  men  under  oath,  into  a 
pure  Democracy — without  any  rule  but  the  will  and  passions 
of  the  multitude.  They  proceeded,  in  the  face  of  the  plainest 
laws,  to  decide  that  a  new  form  of  government  was  necessary 
to  settle  the  question — who  the  legal  people  should  be — what 
kind  of  government  they  should  hereafter  live  under — and  to 
carry  that  government  into  effect  by  force  of  arms.  They 
constituted  themselves  the  judges  in  their  own  case — to  make 
their  own  law — to  decide  their  own  rules  of  proceeding  behind 
the  back  of  the  other  party — to  pronounce  judgment  against 
them  without  a  hearing — and  then  proceeded  to  enforce  the  ex- 
ecution of  them  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet  ! 

Did  the  minority  ever  asseiit  to  such  a  government  as  this? 
Will  they  ever  submit  to  it  ?  I  do  not  stop  to  inquire  whether 
the  constitution  thus  formed  is  a  good  one,  or  a  bad  one.  I 
deny  the  power  to  form  any  constitution  in  such  a  manner.  If 
they  possess  the  power  to  make  a  good  constitution,  without 
any  sanction  from  the  laws,  they  possess  the  power  to  make  a 
bad  one.  Once  admit  the  right  of  one  portion  of  the  people  to 
act  directly  upon  the  rights  of  another,  without  the  interven- 
tion of  judges  and  legislators,  bound  by  their  oaths  to  proceed 
according  to  fixed  rules,  and  you  abolish  all  law  and  all  gov- 
ernment. The  party  in  possession  of  the  most  efficient  milita- 
ry force,  will  always  declare  themselves  the  majority.  A  few 
monied  men,  under  this  doctrine,  will  always  be  able  to  influ- 
ence a  sufficient  number  of  the  more  needy,  to  give  at  least  the 
appearance  of  a  majority.  If  a  portion  of  the  people  possess 
the  power  to  establish  a  constitution  in  this  mode,  and  to  be 
their  own  judges  of  their  own  majority,  they  surely  possess 
the  power  to  enact  any  law  they  may  choose  in  the  same  man- 
ner. They  may  amend  their  own  constitution  by  providing 
that  all  the  expenses  of  the  insurrection  and  all  future  taxes  shall 
imposed  upon  the  farmers.  That  class  of  men  were  their 
most  determined  opponents,  and  they  will  be  their  first  victims. 
Indeed,  v)here  is  this  power  to  end  ?  It  is  a  power  in  a  portion 
2 


10 

of  the  people  to  assemble  in  one  town,  or  in  many  towns — 
make  a  constitution — declare  those  who  voted  for  it  to  have 
been  a  majority — and  then  to  enforce  it  at  the  point  of  the  bay- 
onet. This  is  the  power  which  they  claim.  There  is  no  need 
of  meetings  in  all  the  towns.  The  old  laws  required  that,  but 
the  sovereign  people  can  provide  that  a  majority  may  meet  in 
any  town  that  suits  their  sovereign  pleasure,  because  all  power 
is  in  them.  Remember  that  our  farming  population  is  not  in- 
creasing— that  our  manufacturing  population  is  ; — and  that  this 
is  confined  to  a  small  part  of  the  State,  easily  assembled  and 
easily  excited.  I  do  not  know  that  any  such  design  exists. 
This  is  not  the  question.  Does  not  the  admission  of  the  prin- 
ciple give  them  the  power?  Are  you,  for  the  sake  of  a  party  of 
any  sort  or  kind,  willing  to  establish  such  a  principle  ? 

I  have  said  that  this  principle  of  the  power  of  a  majority,  as 
expounded  by  these  new  lights,  is  wholly  impracticable,  and 
that  no  government  can  exist  under  it.  The  people's  constit- 
itself,  cannot  be  enforced  without  overruling,  by  force  of  law 
this  pretended  and  assumed  power  of  a  majority. 

Suppose  at  any  election  of  town  or  state  officers  under  the 
constitution  there  should  be  a  majority  of  qualified  voters  for 
one  candidate,  and  a  minority  for  another,  but  that  a  portion 
of  the  majority,  though  qualified  to  vote,  did  not  poll  their 
votes  in  the  mode  and  manner  pointed  out  by  law,  would  they 
not  be  rejected  ?  If  the  number  rejected  was  so  great  as  to 
leave  a  majority  on  the  other  side,  one  of  two  consequences  must 
follow,  either  that  the  minority  of  legal  votes  will  prevail  over 
the  actual  majority,  or  that  the  actual  majority  must  prevail, 
although  not  polled  according  to  the  mode  pointed  out  by  the 
election  law.  If  the  minority  should  prevail,  then  there  would 
be  a  complete  abandonment  of  the  assumed  and  arbitrary 
power  of  a  majority.  If  the  illegal  majority  should  prevail,  as 
it  ought  upon  their  principles,  then  no  law  can  e.res;  regulating 
the  mode  or  the  time  of  polling  votes,  or  the  residence  of  voters. 
The  majority  under  their  constitution  may  vote  as  they  please, 
whev  they  please,  and  where  they  please.  If  this  principle  be 
correct  in  voting /or  a  constitution,  it  must  be  correct  in  voting 
under  it.  But  their  own  constitution  repudiates  this  doctrine. 
For  it  establishes  arbitrary  tests  for  the  future  government  of 
the  majority  as  well  as  of  the  minority,  because  at  no  election 
can  it  ever  be  ascertained  on  which  side  the  majority  is,  with- 


11 

out  these  restrictions  as  to  the  time  and  place,  and  mode  of 
voting.  All  civilized  nations  have  practiced  upon  the  princi- 
ple that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a  majority  unless  it  be 
a  majority  polled  and  ascertained  by  some  permanent  law.  It 
is  absolutely  impossible  to  proceed  upon  any  other  principle. 

But  even  this  childish  and  visionary  theory  does  not  help 
the  case  of  those  who  resorted  to  force  to  establish  the  People's 
constitution  ;  for  if  a  majority  possess  the  right,  either  from 
nature  or  implied  contract,  to  control  the  minority  by  a  new- 
constitution,  it  must  be  clearly  proved  that  there  was  a  majority. 
No  doubt  whatever  must  exist  as  to  this  fact.  The  minority 
have  a  right  to  a  clear  expression  of  the  mind  of  each  individ- 
ual composing  the  majority.  This  expression  of  his  mind  is 
an  act  to  be  performed  by  himself  alone.  He  cannot  author- 
ize another  to  express  his  mind  for  him.  The  laws  of  all  civ- 
ilized societies  therefore  require  a  man  to  poll  his  own  vote. 
He  cannot  authorize  another  man  to  vote  for  him.  If  there  were 
no  other  objections  to  the  Peoples  constitution  than  that  5000 
names  of  voters  were  polled  during  the  last  three  days,  by  other 
persons,  for  one,  I  never  would  submit  to  it.  Whoever  exer- 
cises any  power  over  my  person,  by  virtue  of  a  constitution 
obtained  by  the  abominable  frauds  which  marked  ev^cry  stage 
of  its  progress,  must  exercise  it  after  life  is  extinct.  An  at- 
tempt directly  or  indirectly,  to  enforce  a  constitution  thus  ob- 
tained, can  never  succeed  until  thousands  of  men  with  arms  in 
their  hands  are  cut  down.  Whenever  the  people  of  this  State, 
by  a  fair  and  free  expression  of  their  opinions,  shall  alter  the 
present,  or  substitute  a  new  constitution,  according  to  the  es- 
tabhshed  laws,  for  one,  I  am  ready  to  submit  to  its  binding 
power.  But  I  had  rather  sink  with  my  family  beneath  the 
smouldering  ruins  of  Rhode-Island,  than  that  one  of  us  should 
dishonor  her  by  a  base  and  cowardly  submission  to  such  mani- 
fest frauds  and  undisguised  tyranny. 

Thus  much  for  the  past.  Allow  me  to  pass  to  the  future  : 
and,  in  giving  my  opinion  of  what  course  the  true  interests  of 
Rhode-Island  require  every  friend  of  good  government  to 
pursue,  1  feel  it  my  duty  to  state  expressly  that  I  do  not  wish 
or  expect  that  any  man  should  be  at  all  influenced  by  my 
mere  assertion.  I  should  regret  the  day  when  the  single  opin- 
ion of  any  man  should  decide  the  vote  of  an  independant  cit- 
izen of  Rhode-Island. 


12 

What  1  do  wish  is,  that  every  true  friend  of  republican  gov- 
ernment will  calmly  and  dispassionately  consider  the  reasons 
which  I  shall  give,  and  then  act  according  to  his  own  best 
judgment.  I  will  now  proceed  to  give  the  principal  reasons 
which  influence  my  mind.  They  are  my  own  reasons.  I  do 
not  know  that  they  will  be  acceptable  to  the  individuals  or  the 
party  which  I  shall  support,  or  that  their  weight  and  value 
will  be  denied  by  the  opposite  party.  All  that  I  do  know  is, 
that  they  are  not  given  at  the  request  or  solicitation  of  either 
party,  or  of  any  individual  of  either  party.  I  am  alone  re- 
sponsible for  the  sentiments  of  this  letter. 

From  a  very  early  period  down  to  the  present  moment,  my 
main  hope  of  the  durability  of  a  free  government  has  been 
founded  in  the  practical  good  sense  of  the  middling  classes  of 
society.  While  they  are,  beyond  all  comparison,  the  most 
useful  and  indispensable  classes,  they  at  the  same  time  suffer 
most  vitally  and  directly  from  arbitrary  government  on  the  one 
hand,  and  from  anarchy  and  confusion  on  the  other.  They 
constitute  the  main  trunk  of  the  body  politic,  where  are 
found  the  heart  and  and  the  other  great  vital  organs  of  society 
There  are  but  few  diseases  to  which  society  is  subject,  and 
none  of  a  fatal  character,  that  do  not  fasten  themselves  upon 
those  main  and  vital  classes.  They  are  the  great  j)roducing 
classes,  the  farmers,  the  mechanics,  and  the  industrious  labor- 
ers, and  are  most  deeply  interested  in  permanent  and  steady 
laws,  securing  to  them  fair  equivalents  for  the  fruits  of  their 
industry.  What  they  most  desire  is  to  be  exempted  from  the 
partial,  severe,  and  exacting  laws  of  a  monied  aristocracy  on 
the  one  hand,  and  from  the  unstable  and  tumultuary  legislation 
of  the  idle,  the  ignorant,  and  the  floating  part  of  our  popula- 
tion, on  the  other.  While  it  is  very  natural  that  the  man  of 
great  wealth  should  convince  himself  that  that  legislation 
which  increases  his  influence  and  his  power,  will  be  most 
beneficial  to  society,  it  is  equally  natural,  that  the  ignorant, 
the  idle,  and  the  profligate  should  feel  that  no  change  can 
place  them  lower  down,  and  that  any  change  may  raise  them 
higher  up.  There  always  has  been,  and  always  will  be,  a 
tendency  to  draw  the  reins  too  taught,  in  one  end  of  society, 
and  to  loosen  them  entirely,  in  the  other.  As  in  a  storm  there 
is  the  least  motion  in  the  middle  of  the  ship,  so  in  free  govern- 
ments there  is  the  least  tendency  to  sudden  changes,  in  the 


13 

middle  classes.  In  those  classes  has  the  political  power  been 
lodged  during  the  whole  two  hundred  years  of  Rhode  Island  his- 
tory and  1  challenge  the  most  ardent  admirer  of  revoiutionm-y 
doctrines,  to  produce  a  single  instance,  from  ancient  or  modern 
history,  of  a  nation  or  state  whose  affairs  have  been  more  wise- 
ly, more  firmly,  or  more  humanely  administered.  Some  errors 
may  have  been  committed,  but,  if  errors  at  all,  they  were  not 
on  the  side  of  power,  but  of  humanity.  Some  partiality  may 
have  been  evinced  by  those  middle  classes,  but  it  was  not  a 
partiality  that  moved  up  to  the  rich,  but  down  to  the  poor,  the 
destitute,  and  the  unfortunate. 

The  experience  of  Rhode-Island  confirms  the  previous  ex- 
perience of  all  other  nations.  I  do  not  remember  a  single  in- 
stance, in  ancient  or  modern  times,  in  which  power  was  not 
on  the  whole  humanely  and  judiciously  exercised,  so  long  as 
it  remained  in  the  middle  classes,  nor  one  in  which  it  did  not 
mount  into  despotism  and  cruelty  when  exercised  by  tlie  few 
rich,  and  in  which  it  did  not  end  in  anarchy,  tumult  and 
bloodshed,  when  in  the  hands  of  the  idle  and  profligate  poor. 

By  idle  and  profligate  poor,  you  will  not  understand  me  to 
mean  that  all  or  even  the  mass  of  the  poor  are  of  that  cliarac- 
ter.  But  those  among  them  who  are  idle  and  profligate  become 
the  pliant  tools  of  a  few  ambitious  rich,  or  of  designing  ofTice- 
hunters,  so  that,  practically  speaking,  the  result  most  generally 
is,  that  the  poorer  classes,  united  to  a  few  of  the  ambitious 
rich,  generally  neutralize  the  whole  power  and  influence  of  the 
middle  classes.  If  this  is  not  the  undeviating  result  as  estab- 
lished by  history,  I  have  read  it  to  but  little  purpose.  It  will 
continue  to  be  the  result  here  and  elsewhere,  upon  every  trial 
of  the  experiment. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  mass  of  what  is  called  the  Law 
and  Order  party  are  of  the  middle  classes  of  society,  that  they 
have,  during  the  predominancy  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  great 
political  parties,  always  been  in  power,  and  have  always  exer- 
cised it  beneficially.  We  know  then  what  use  these  men  will 
make  of  political  power. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  know  that  a  considerable,  if  not  a  very 
large  proportion  of  the  opposite  party,  are  from  the  lowest  class  ; 
that  many  of  them  are  needy,  and  many  of  them  idle  and  pro- 
fligate. That  they  are  precisely  the  class  of  men  whom  the 
few  rich  or  ambitious  always  have  influenced  and  always  wil^ 


14 

influence.  In  no  sense  can  they  be  called  independent  voters. 
If  it  were  my  object  to  rule  the  State  of  Rhode-Island  in  spite 
of  the  middle  classes,  I  should  begin  by  flattering  its  lowest 
class.  What  may  be  the  object  of  Carpenter  and  his  associates, 
you  can  determine  for  yourselves.  They  are  in  pursuit  of  of- 
fice and  power  through  the  agency  mainly  of  the  lowest  class 
in  point  of  property;  and  if  they  succeed,  those  of  that  party 
who  belong  to  the  middle  classes  will  be  disappointed  if  they 
suppose  they  are  to  retain  any  influence. 

But  apart  from  the  general  objection  to  changing  the  source 
of  power  and  influence  which  are  permanently  to  control  us, 
I  think  there  are  special  reasons  against  the  change  at  the  pre- 
sent time.  We  are  not  yet  fairly  out  of  the  revolution  which 
has  shaken  this  State  to  its  very  centre.  We  still  hear  the 
howling  of  the  tempest,  and  still  see  angry  clouds  in  the  sky. 
It  is  no  time  to  change  old  and  experienced  pilots,  for  those 
who  are  new  and  untried  ;  and  especially  for  those  pilots  by 
whose  magic  wand  the  tempest  was  raised.  The  same  motives 
which  induced  them  to  bring  it  into  existence,  may  induce 
them  to  continue  it,  especially  if  they  are  to  act  under  influ- 
ences of  such  a  tendency.  Allow  me  for  one  moment,  to  call 
your  attention  to  the  position,  which,  in  case  of  their  election. 
Carpenter  and  his  associates  will  occupy,  and  to  the  influences 
under  which  they  must  act,  whatever  may  be  their  present  in- 
tentions. 

I  understand  that  it  is  said,  that  Carpenter  and  his  associates 
were  opposed  to  the  attempt  of  the  Dorr  party  to  possess  them- 
selves of  the  sovereignty  of  the  State  by  force  of  arms,  and  to 
wade  through  blood  to  political  power.  I  think  imost  proba- 
ble that  Carpenter  was.  But  why  was  he  opposed  to  it  ?  Was 
it  because  he  was  unwilling  that  Dorr  should  succeed  ?  Did  he 
or  did  he  noi  justify  his  resort  to  arms  ?  He  must  have  justified 
the  measures  of  Dorr  as  constitutional  and  legal,  or  condemned 
them  as  open  rebellion.  I  say  he  justified  them  ;  I  say  that 
he  was  clear  and  decided  in  his  opinion,  that  Dorr  possessed 
the  legal  right  to  take  the  short  road  to  power,  through  blood. 
He  was  anxious  that  he  should  succeed,  but  he  thought  it 
more  expedient  to  take  a  more  circuitous  and  peaceable  road  to 
the  same  object.  Let  us  examine  this  one  moment.  If  Car- 
penter and  his  associates  did  not  justify  the  movement  of  Dorr, 
then  in  their  opinion  it  was  open  rebellion.  It  was  no  half 
way  measure.  It  was  treason  and  rebellion,  or  it  was  a  legal 
and  justifiable  mode  of  establishing  the  People's  constitution. 
Carpenter  and  his  associates  believed  it  to  be  either  the  one  or 
the  other.  If  they  believed  it  to  be  rebellion,  why  did  they 
not  take  up  arms  to  suppress  it  or  lend  their  aid  to  those  who 


15 

did  ?  If  it  was  rebellion,  Carpenter  and  his  men  must  have 
felt  it  to  be  an  imperative  and  sacred  duty  upon  any  Rhode-Is- 
land man  to  aid  in  suppressing  it.  They  must  tako  one  side 
or  the  other  of  the  dilemma.  If  they  believe  Dorr's  move- 
ment was  rebellion,  they  also  believe  that  it  was  their  duty 
and  the  duty  of  every  man  to  suppress  it.  They  must  believe 
that  those  who  did  not  lend  their  aid  at  such  a  moment,  are 
unfit  to  be  placed  in  possession  of  the  whole  power  of  the  State. 
I  say,  then,  to  Carpenter  and  to  any  under  similar  circumstan- 
ces, if  they  believed  Dorr's  movement  was  unjustifiable  rebel- 
lion, and  instead  of  lending  their  aid  to  suppress  it,  they  stood 
idly  gazing  on  while  a  set  of  cowardly  ruffians  were  preparing 
to  seize  upon  the  Treasury  and  the  other  property  of  the  State, 
that  instead  of  being  rewarded  with  public  honors,  they  deserve 
open  and  public  disgrace.  They  are  unfit  for  any  trust  of  a 
public  or  private  nature. 

But  Carpenter  and  his  friends  acted  with  perfect  consistency. 
Their  hearts  were  with  Dorr  at  every  stage  of  his  proceedings. 
l^hey  justifiea  his  movement  as  a  legal  and  rightful  one  ;  they, 
therefore,  could  not  oppose  a  movement  which  they  believed  to 
be  legal,  nor  aid  it,  because,  though  legal,  they  thought  it  me/;- 
pedient. 

Carpenter  and  his  friends  not  only  so  fully  justified  the  re- 
bellion of  Dorr,  that  they  refused  their  own  aid  in  suppressing 
it,  but  they  threw  their  whole  weight  into  his  scale  so  far  as 
they  could. — No  man  in  the  State  of  Rhode-Island  has  evinced 
more  bitterness,  or  applied  epithets  more  opprobious  to  the  gov- 
ernment party,  than  Carpenter  himself. 

Why  oppose  the  government  party  for  putting  down  rebell- 
ion? For  doing  their  duty  ?  Because  in  his  mind  it  was  not 
rebellion.  In  his  mind  Dorr  had  a  right  to  possess  himself  of 
the  public  property,  and  the  government  party  had  no  rigid  to 
oppose  him.  Therefore  the  government  party  were  in  his 
mind  worse  than  Algerine  pirates. 

Besides,  Carpenter  is  now  supported  by  the  Dorr  men.  Their 
newspapers  are  his  newspapers,  their  orators  are  his  orators. 
He  expounds  his  principles  through  the  medium  of  the  presses 
which  urged  the  ruffians  to  the  work  of  blood  and  plunder,  and 
he  enforces  those  principles  through  the  aid  of  orators,  whose 
eloquence  is  graced  with  the  last  polish  of  a  State  Prison  ed- 
ucation. 

The  position  of  Carpenter,  then,  is  pretty  obvious.  He  is 
the  leader  of  the  Dorr  party — the  party  which  after  having 
failed  to  possess  themselves  of  the  Treasury  by  violence,  now 
come  forward,  with  all  imaginable  meekness,  and  beg  the  peo- 
ple quietly  and  peaceably  to  surrender  its  possession. 

But,  it  is  important  to  consider,  in  case  Carpenter  should  be 
elected,  under  what  influences  he  must  act.  If  elected  at  all, 
it  must  be  by  the  aid,  in  a  very  large  measure,  of  the  real,  un- 


UCSB  LIBR 

16 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


000  609  238 


adulterated  Dorr  men.  These  men  will  come  suddenly  into 
power  with  the  most  exasperated  feelings.  They  have  losses 
to  repair — supposed  injuries  to  redress — and  old  grudges  to 
gratify.  The  Treasury  of  the  State  may  call  out  their  first  ef- 
forts— the  most  obnoxious  Law  and  Order  men  may  receive 
the  honor  of  their  second  notice — and  the  last,  but  not  less 
certain  objects  of  their  attention,  will  be  the  moderate  and  ju- 
dicious friends  of  suffrage  who  refused  their  aid  in  the  last  des- 
perate blow  at  the  sovereignty  of  the  State. 

The  Dorites  will  be  the  Cossacks  of  the  army,  and  must 
plunder  somewhere,  and  if  the  spoils  of  the  enemy  should  not 
fully  load  them,  the  tents  of  their  friends  must  make  up  the 
deficiency.  They  are  the  most  active  and  the  most  bitter  of 
the  party ;  and  in  all  associations,  whether  social,  religions,  or 
political,  the  most  active  and  extravagant  are  generally  the 
most  influential,  because  they  are  constantly  at  work,  while 
the  more  moderate  and  judicious  are  attending  to  their  own 
concerns.  There  are, doubtless,  many  honest  and  well-mean- 
ing men  of  that  party  ;  but  the  leaders  will  feel,  whatever  their 
motives  may  be,  that  they  were  put  into  power  by  the  aid  of 
Dorr  men,  and  must  depend  upon  Dorr  men  for  their  future 
support.  Will  they  fail  to  comply  with  their  demands  ?  What 
class  of  political  men  is  there  in  this  country  who  do  not  re- 
ward their  most  active  supporters  ?  As  Carpenter  and  his  as- 
sociates justified  the  use  of  arms  by  Dorr  and  his  party,  must 
they  not  use  all  their  influence  to  restore  to  them  the  money 
they  have  expended,  and  to  repair  the  losses  they  have  sustain- 
ed. 

If  the  People's  constitution  was  the  only  legal  and  binding 
constitution,  were  not  the  Dorr  party  fully  justified  in  endeav- 
oring to  sustain  it  ?  Are  Carpenter  and  his  associates  the  men  to 
whom  you  are  willing  to  confide  the  decision  of  such  a  ques- 
tion ? 

To  the  moderate  and  well  disposed  men  of  the  suffrage  par- 
ty, men  who  are  the  real  friends  of  the  free  institutions  under 
which  we  live,  I  put  the  question,  Can  you  gain  any  thing  by 
allying  yourselves  to  the  Dorr  party  ?  If  once  admitted  to  your 
counsel  and  to  your  alliance,  will  you  not  have  every  thing  to 
fear  from  their  bitterness  and  their  fury  ?  Can  you  suppose  that 
you  are  to  guide  the  measures  of  the  party  ?  To  those  of  the 
Law  and  Order  party  I  say,  do  your  duty  to  the  full  ;  not  in 
bitterness  and  hostility  of  spirit,  but  with  the  most  determined 
firmness.  The  great  question  whether  the  political  power  of 
the  State  is  to  pass  out  of  the  hands  of  the  middle  classes,  is 
about  to  be  decided.  If  it  does  not,,  peace  and  harmony  will 
be  restored.  If  it  does,  the  forms  of  a  free  government  may 
remain,  but  its  salutary  spirit  will  depart  forever. 

JOHN  WHIPPLE. 

Providence,  March  22,  1843. 


